Concept Paper
Structural and Contentual Complexity in Water Governance
Rudy Vannevel * and Peter L. M. Goethals
Citation: Vannevel, R.;
Goethals, P.L.M. Structural and Contentual Complexity in Water Governance.Sustainability2021,13, 9751. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13179751
Academic Editor: Peter Driessen
Received: 7 July 2021 Accepted: 20 August 2021 Published: 30 August 2021
Publisher’s Note:MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Department of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent, Belgium; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract:Social-ecological systems and governance are complex systems and crises that affect those systems are likely to be complex as well. Environmental topics are multi-faceted with respect to both structure and content. Structural complexity is about societal and institutional organization and management, whereas contentual complexity deals with environmental (or societal) analyses, knowledge, and problem-solving. Interactions between both are manifold, and it is essential they are included in decision-making. Describing these interactions results in a series of nineteen units, arranged in a matrix according to their prevailing mutual dependencies. These units show dominant processes and concepts, representative of environmental analysis. This approach, called ACCU (aggregation of concepts and complex adapted systems units), is provided with evidence through practices of, in particular, water governance.
Keywords:water governance; complex systems; Pentatope Model; structural complexity; contentual complexity; systems thinking
1. Introduction
Water governance is characterized by a wide diversity of policy areas, decentralized water policy-making, a sectoral fragmentation of water-related tasks across ministries and public agencies, a diversity of actors involved in water policy making, and policy makers facing conflicting objectives [1]. On the other hand, numerous water-related issues deal with water quality, water availability, and aquatic life as a result of population growth, economic activities, and climate change. Content and context are part of a webbed structure, making any analysis or decision difficult and incomplete. They are at the basis of the ‘governance gaps’ defined by OECD [1] (policy gap, information gap, capacity gap, accountability gap, administrative gap, funding gap, and objective gap), potentially contributing to uncertainty in decision-making.
This makes water governance a complex system.
Social-ecological systems are complex systems. Changes to these systems cause im- plications that are critical to their social, economic, and natural capitals. Climate change, biodiversity loss, shrinking natural resources, and pandemics lead to questioning the prevailing paradigms and call for more adaptive and integrative approaches to respond to societal shifts. Facing the many, large-scale complex issues of our contemporary so- ciety, policy makers too easily call for ‘a holistic approach’—a buzzword—to deal with complexity. But holism is a worldview in the first place, which may be missing embed- ded practices. Dealing with threats to social well-being, economic welfare, and healthy ecosystems requires theoretical and conceptual approaches, and practical tools to dis- entangle apparently intractable societal situations. There is a need for transdisciplinary approaches, and recognition of the value of complex social-ecological systems analysis, strategic adaptive management, and even resilience [2]. At the same time, there is an increasing conviction that current economic practices and technological developments alone do not hold the solution to these kinds of issues, and even lose value in favour of stakeholders’ involvement [3–5]. This results in a common and gradual shift from an evidence-based scientific-technological towards a more tentative social-involvement form
Sustainability2021,13, 9751. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179751 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
of decision-making, in the way Gupta and Pouw [6] advocate ‘inclusive development’.
Whatever distinction can be made—knowledge-driven versus communication-driven, or science versus governance—they all combine content and organisation. Related to complex systems, this is experienced as contentual and structural complexity of our society. This will now be applied to environmental issues and illustrated where possible with examples of water governance.
A vast number of publications on water governance and management deal with the outcome of the decision-making process, including policy principles, policy and man- agement instruments, and plans and programs. There is also a wealth of information on related processes discussing the relevance of regulations, science-policy interactions, and policy cycle analyses. To this end, the widely applied DPSIR concept could be of practical use, although practices remain too often restricted to a pressure-status impact analysis, omitting the drivers and responses [7]. This contrasts with the societal developments, resulting in intensified competition for water resources that challenges governances to allocate water between uses and users, at the same time facing growing competition for natural resources as a result of population growth, economic developments, and climate change [8]. Knowledge and cognition systems analysis and other thematic topics are part of contentual complexity. In this paper, the notion ‘contentual’ is preferred when it deals with content in general, and ‘thematic’ when it relates to content with some form of classification or ordination (such as disciplines, environmental issues).
Societal structures are founded on institutional organization, with networks and hier- archies of interactions between institutes that secure governance in general and decision- making in particular. There is a common belief that formal rules and practices result in formal decision-making, irrespective of individual choices and preferences. In reality, decision-making seems rather a socio-biological battlefield, dominated by competing forces within and between hierarchies that range from the individual to the global organisation.
Recognizing the role of humans and related power shifts is key to addressing global chal- lenges. One focus of this paper is therefore on arguing for the inclusion of the human factor in water governance, in particular when dealing with environmental complexity.
Institutional and societal organisation, human resources and competences, as well as re- lated processes (e.g., administrative procedures and social learning) and their properties (e.g., human behaviour and communication), are part of structural complexity.
There is, however, a broad overlap between contentual and structural complexity.
In particular, management forms are tightly connected to both. As physical bodies of governance, public authorities combine content (e.g., environmental policy), structure (e.g., institutional organisation), and their overlap (organizational and environmental man- agement). Complex societal issues show both contentual and structural complexity, which can be cogently illustrated by the developments of the 19th C industrial revolution. Its storyline combines four major developments: technological innovations, socio-economic developments, the sanitary revolution, and a call for institutional reform [9]. Central to this were the rapidly changing urban societies with numerous emerging issues requiring a new kind of governance. The increase of societal complexity at that time is comparable with the global trends experienced today. Figure1applies to both cases as it depicts the same char- acteristics: [1] a shifting societal equilibrium; [2] severe environmental/systemic impacts, challenging the ecosystem’s value; [3] an increasing thematic (contentual) complexity; and, resulting from this, [4] an increasing structural complexity. Complexity increase requires at first instance insight into the functioning of complex systems (systems analysis). There is a growing belief that complex issues must be addressed by coupled human-natural systems approaches, but existing approaches in the water domain—including integrated water resources management (IWRM) or socio-hydrology—apparently do not meet the require- ments needed for policy-making (see: [10]). Almost two decades after the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) [11], there is still a plea for integration with
‘external’ policies—in particular by integrating environmental and social objectives, urban
water in a wider context, and the climate change policy as a whole—that affect aquatic ecosystems [12].
and social objectives, urban water in a wider context, and the climate change policy as a whole—that affect aquatic ecosystems [12].
Figure 1. Governance adaptation and complex systems. Significant changes of societal conditions are the cause of and result from global trends and require adapted forms of governance. On the content side, thematic complexity increases, whereas on the management side this results in struc- tural complexity. Public authorities should deal with institutional and environmental challenges to keep pace with increasing complexity. Abbreviations: authority (auth.), environmental information cycle (EIC), environmental governance (Env. gov.), ecosystem carrying capacity (ES CC), ecosystem (ES), habitat range (HR), institutional governance (Inst. gov.).
Dealing with complexity requires governance at different hierarchical levels. The subject matter of this paper is water governance. Water governance needs to be ap- proached within a systemic framework, which requires the understanding of the key driv- ers of water resources management [13]. Akhmouch and Clavreul [14] (p. 2) define water governance as “encompassing political, institutional and administrative rules, practices, and pro- cesses through which decisions are taken and implemented, stakeholders can articulate their inter- ests and have their concerns considered, and decision-makers are held accountable in the manage- ment of water resources and the delivery of water services”; the OECD as “the set of administrative systems, with a core focus on formal institutions (laws, official policies) and informal institutions (power relations and practices) as well as organisational structures and their efficiency” ([1] (p.
28); [15] (p. 2)). Recognising the overarching complexity of different systems involved, Corbett et al. argue, “that cross-systems integrations demands a more profound awareness of the deeper structures of organizational life (…) than is generally recognized” [16] (p. 28). This paper aims to ‘construct’ a higher level of conceptualization by sorting out units and interactions that link contentual and structural complexity to governance. It should serve as a visuali- sation of the inherently vague holism concept, selecting a number of building blocks to be combined in different ways, detailed with an almost infinite number of properties and interactions. The proposed concept aims to meet the call for diagnostic tools to deal with the complexity of interactions that characterize multi-actor, multi-level, and polycentric governance regimes [17]. Its construction results from a number of previous studies by the authors, dealing with:
Complex systems GOVERNANCE
Systems analysis Global trends
Structural complexity
SOCIETAL CAPITALS
ESs – Natural resources
EIC
Law Politics
Science Adminis-Public tration Policy
Mgmt
Thematic complexity Societal
equilibrium
Env. gov.
Instit. gov.
Public auth.
Emerging issues Adaptive
governance
Environmental/
Societal impacts
Adaptivecycle/ Panarchyconcept
Evidence-based decision-making
“Pathology of natural resources management”
ES value
Figure 1.Governance adaptation and complex systems. Significant changes of societal conditions are the cause of and result from global trends and require adapted forms of governance. On the content side, thematic complexity increases, whereas on the management side this results in structural complexity. Public authorities should deal with institutional and environmental challenges to keep pace with increasing complexity. Abbreviations: authority (auth.), environmental information cycle (EIC), environmental governance (Env. gov.), ecosystem carrying capacity (ES CC), ecosystem (ES), habitat range (HR), institutional governance (Inst. gov.).
Dealing with complexity requires governance at different hierarchical levels. The subject matter of this paper is water governance. Water governance needs to be approached within a systemic framework, which requires the understanding of the key drivers of water resources management [13]. Akhmouch and Clavreul [14] (p. 2) define water governance as “encompassing political, institutional and administrative rules, practices, and processes through which decisions are taken and implemented, stakeholders can articulate their interests and have their concerns considered, and decision-makers are held accountable in the management of water resources and the delivery of water services”; the OECD as “the set of administrative systems, with a core focus on formal institutions (laws, official policies) and informal institutions (power relations and practices) as well as organisational structures and their efficiency” ([1] (p. 28); [15] (p. 2)).
Recognising the overarching complexity of different systems involved, Corbett et al. argue,
“that cross-systems integrations demands a more profound awareness of the deeper structures of organizational life (. . . ) than is generally recognized” [16] (p. 28). This paper aims to ‘construct’
a higher level of conceptualization by sorting out units and interactions that link contentual and structural complexity to governance. It should serve as a visualisation of the inherently vague holism concept, selecting a number of building blocks to be combined in different ways, detailed with an almost infinite number of properties and interactions. The proposed concept aims to meet the call for diagnostic tools to deal with the complexity of interactions that characterize multi-actor, multi-level, and polycentric governance regimes [17]. Its construction results from a number of previous studies by the authors, dealing with:
I. The Pentatope Model (PT Model; [18]), a general approach for mapping envi- ronmental issues that includes interactions between societal capitals (CAPs), the environmental information cycle (EIC), and governance;
II. Increasing environmental complexity [19], that further elaborates on the EIC sub- framework of the PT Model;
III. The DPSIR-GASI concept [7]: an extension of the commonly applied DPSIR dis- turbance chain, focusing on the interactions between actors and subjects, the role of governance in the decision-making process (GASI: governance by actor-subject impact analysis), and water balances as a technical tool to support decision-making;
IV. Natural resources analysis [20], discussing the sustainable use of natural resources and related policy and management instruments by identifying key factors of ecosystem functioning.
This paper aims to explore and describe the conceptual basis of a ‘holistic’ approach to water governance. This is accomplished by developing a conceptual model of environ- mental analysis, combining elements of theories and practices of contentual and structural complexity into a single flow chart that allows us to navigate across complex adapted systems (CAS) units to analyse environmental issues. Showing an ‘aggregation of concepts and CAS units’ (ACCU)—which is a selection of CAS components and basic concepts of process functioning that relate to water governance, structured according to their most plausible interactions—should visualise the holism concept as a practical tool for problem analysis and communication, and to explore the limits of such a visualisation.
The main task of this paper is to explain the selection of the ACC-units and the way they ‘communicate’ with each other. The criteria for the selection are the applicability for environmental analysis as well as the ‘cohesion’ between units. To describe the units, a selection of terms, properties, and tools is used, preferably as found in literature. As advocated by Madani and Shafiee-Jood [10], inventing new terms and concepts is avoided if possible, although this does not always fit an integrated conceptual approach. The authors believe that it is up to the experts in the respective fields to review terms, definitions, and related classifications within a broader conceptual setting. Evidence and practices illustrate the importance and validity of each ACC-unit. A few applications indicate the beneficial use of the ACCU concept.
This paper further elaborates on Vannevel and Goethals’s work [20], which explores the fundaments of ecosystem functioning and how this relates to sustainable use of natural resources. The focus is now on the way decision-making deals with it, considering risk management, organization structure, and governance forms. Here, too, the challenge is to combine a multitude of different aspects that relate to complexity in a dynamic and practical tool, aiming to foster insights and discussions. The idea to include ‘risk’ aspects logically emerged from the holism and systems thinking concepts, of which uncertainty is an inherent part. The content focuses on the interactions between the sub-frameworks of the Pentatope Model and GASI concept [7], in particular CAPs, governance, and EIC. The PT Model shows the sub-frameworks that are of importance when dealing with complex adaptive systems (CASs), including governance, CAPs, and EIC. Furthermore, the topic focuses on the environment (water domain). GASI is a common basis for the process behind DPSIR, and this paper illustrates the interactions between governance, societal capitals (actors), natural resources (subject), and the diversity of elements that relate to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA; impacts).
2. Major Components of Complex Systems
The Pentatope Model [18] is used to illustrate and structure complexity at the supra- governance level. Figure1depicts the dynamism between four sub-frameworks of the Pentatope Model (societal capitals, ecosystems, the environmental information cycle (EIC), and governance). Complexity increase of environmental issues is a result of the number and intensity of significant disturbances (environmental changes), following the global trends that affect ecosystems. Global trends are of a very different nature and originate
from a mixture of socio-economic and governance behaviour and decisions. They globally and locally shift the societal equilibrium and their impacts tend to outreach minimum requirements of ecosystem carrying capacity and habitat requirements. This interaction is discussed in Vannevel and Goethals [20]. Diversity and intensity of impacts are the main cause of complexity, requiring new knowledge, innovative tools, and adapted forms of (water) governance. However, adaptive governance itself contributes to complexity by its own dynamics, as is shown by Holling’s Adaptive Cycle [21], applicable to both governance and ecosystem functioning. Even more meaningful in this context arethe
‘pathology of natural resources management’[21] and the Panarchy concept [22]. Dealing with complexity at sub-governance level necessitates the discussion of interactions between law, politics, science, and public administration, in order to support decision-making that serves policy and management.
There is no limit on the number, extent, and degree of complexity of complex systems.
The figure shows governance and societal capitals as the principal components of complex systems when dealing with societal/environmental issues. Many of these issues are experienced as a shift of the societal equilibrium between the social, economic, and natural capitals. In the case of natural resources depletion, there is a mutual interaction between loss of ecosystem value and equilibrium shifts, deeply affecting the prevailing conditions of the capitals. Analysis of the natural system alone requires quite a number of thematic studies that should explain the size of the issues and the governance needs. In some cases, this thematic complexity forces structural adaptation (e.g., reorganization), which in its turn leads to an adapted form of governance. In this way, content and structure are intrinsically connected within a broader complex system that shows a number of functional properties.
3. The Functioning of Complex Systems
The understanding of systems behaviour is essential to governance when dealing with environmental issues, in particular the way the natural capital interacts with the social and economic capitals. Each capital is considered a complex adaptive system (CAS), defined by Pahl-Wostl [17] (p. 357) as “a complex, nonlinear, interactive system which has the ability to adapt to a changing environment”. However, governance itself, as well as the actors involved, are part of complex systems. Systems complexity results from its inherent structure and functioning, and is characterized by (combinations of) [2,7,10,17,21,23–33]:
1. multiple components (attributes, elements):
i. showing diversity (heterogeneity), such as actors and subjects, or, quantifiable (material flows, balances) and non-quantifiable (decision-making) content;
ii. structured according to a variety of scales and levels: multilevel (spatial, ranging from, e.g., habitats to biomes, and temporal, ranging from short to long term), hierarchical;
2. multiple interactions (relations) between components, including:
i. different forms: singular, multiple;
ii. different types: single, mutual (e.g., bottom-up vs. top-down);
3. interactions showing structural differentiation:
i. linear and non-linear (e.g., ramification, web-shaped), circular;
4. interactions showing behavioural differentiation:
i. static and dynamic;
ii. path dependency (depending on the previous step) vs. mutual dependency (e.g., domains of attraction according to Holling [34]);
iii. scale augmentation or reduction between related causes and effects;
iv. behavioural changes: adaptation, self-organization;
5. sequences of interactions resulting in a diversity of processes:
i. serial, parallel, and cyclic processes;
ii. destabilising forces, (non-)stationary and evolutionary processes;
iii. lock-ins (i.e., no previous intervention), feedback loops (positive feedback, increasing returns, (self-)reinforcing, balancing, reciprocal);
6. processes having properties that result in systemic changes:
i. resilience, (in-)stability, oscillation;
ii. tipping-points, single or multiple or absence of equilibria;
iii. time delays, regime shifts, emergence, new system states;
7. systemic changes becoming unpredictable and unexpected:
i. spatial and temporal variability;
ii. indeterminate causality, increase of risks, increase of uncertainty, difficulties of probabilistic forecasting, limited predictability, irreducible uncertainties, unexpected responses;
8. a combined set of components, processes, and properties forming a system (structure, network):
i. hierarchy of subsystems versus nested networks;
ii. evolution from individual to complex systems;
iii. the potential of self-organisation in a non-equilibrium environment.
Examples of systemic behaviour show that complex systems are driven by fundamen- tal characteristics of their constituents, in a way a social group functions according to its members’ behaviour, or an ecosystem by its species traits. Environmental governance oper- ates within a network of CASs. One example of such a network is a ‘policy network’, which is “a collection of stable relations among mutually dependent actors” [33] (p. 195). Studying gov- ernance modes of sustainable urban water management, van de Meene et al. [35] applies an approach of regime conceptualization comprising four elements: actors, processes, struc- tures, and influences. Examples of combinations of characteristics include the Adaptive Cycle, the Panarchy concept, and the ‘pathology of natural resources management’ [21].
The ‘pathology’ illustrates a reinforcing feedback loop. It recalls similar concepts such as the rebound effect and Jevons paradox. Addressing environmental problems should involve dealing with these kinds of complexities and behaviour, and, within the limits of policy and management control [32], being aware that any environmental issue is part of a bigger systemic complex. However, being part of the policy-management nexus, decision- making results very often in linear processes that start with problem setting and end with implementing measures. Adaptive management, instead, commonly used in natural resources management, tends to include a feedback at every step of this process. [29].
It must be noticed that the CAS description deals with a structural description of systems, with the focus on the types of relationships between elements within complex systems, avoiding the proper identification of its components. Content that characterises so- cietal functioning must be added to make systems thinking practical. The next paragraphs describe this content—an arrangement of selected CAS units and concepts—from a ‘holistic’
perspective, as far as it concerns environmental (and in particular water) governance and deals with contentual and structural complexity.
4. Concepts and Practices
To define the content and context of this paper (within the self-imposed restraints), a few publications could serve as an example. With respect to climate change adaptation, Maani [29] lists five key ingredients for adaptation planning:
1. Understanding and assessing vulnerability, 2. Managing risks,
3. Scenario thinking (to address specific impacts),
4. Identifying synergies and overcoming conflict (to meet the sustainability goals), 5. Awareness, leadership, and partnerships.
These requirements are expected to be part of a bigger model description serving all kinds of societal issues, of which (adaptation) planning is but a small part. In this
respect, Pahl-Wostl [17] proposes a framework of four dimensions that deal with gover- nance: institutions (as formal and informal behaviour rules), actor networks, multi-level interactions, and governance modes. The challenge is to combine these and other concepts, classifications, and experiences described in literature in a single approach, attempting to be solid without being rigid.
Figure2shows an aggregation of different elements that are of importance when discussing the wider environmental complexity. The idea is to identify a number of units and to aggregate and detail these units according to the level and extent of the investigated environmental issue. This makes clear why the ACCU approach stands for
‘aggregation of concepts and CAS units’. ‘Concepts’ refers to generic approaches and methods (including cartwheels, lists, and classifications), and ‘CAS units’ to components of complex adaptive systems (such as: governance, resources, thematic issues). The ACCU figure (Figure2) shows the arrangement of 19 components from the perspective of environmental disturbances that result in impacts on (eco)systems, in their turn posing a risk to human society. Both mutually interact with structural and contentual complexity (visualised by a circle across the units). The other units are arranged according to their affinity with these four central units:
I. systemic impacts (SystImp): systemic hazard (SystHaz), systems value (SystVal), environmental information cycle (EIC);
II. risks and responses (RiskResp): decision-making (DecMak), societal capitals (CAPs), natural resources (NatRes);
III. structural complexity (StructComp): public governance styles (PubGovStyl), gov- ernance institutions (GovInst), organisational management (OrgMgmt);
IV. contentual complexity (ContComp): knowledge domains (KnowDom), disciplinary knowledge (DiscKnow), problem-solving strategies (ProbSolvStrat).
These requirements are expected to be part of a bigger model description serving all kinds of societal issues, of which (adaptation) planning is but a small part. In this respect, Pahl-Wostl [17] proposes a framework of four dimensions that deal with governance: in- stitutions (as formal and informal behaviour rules), actor networks, multi-level interac- tions, and governance modes. The challenge is to combine these and other concepts, clas- sifications, and experiences described in literature in a single approach, attempting to be solid without being rigid.
Figure 2 shows an aggregation of different elements that are of importance when discussing the wider environmental complexity. The idea is to identify a number of units and to aggregate and detail these units according to the level and extent of the investigated environmental issue. This makes clear why the ACCU approach stands for ‘aggregation of concepts and CAS units’. ‘Concepts’ refers to generic approaches and methods (includ- ing cartwheels, lists, and classifications), and ‘CAS units’ to components of complex adap- tive systems (such as: governance, resources, thematic issues). The ACCU figure (Figure 2) shows the arrangement of 19 components from the perspective of environmental dis- turbances that result in impacts on (eco)systems, in their turn posing a risk to human so- ciety. Both mutually interact with structural and contentual complexity (visualised by a circle across the units). The other units are arranged according to their affinity with these four central units:
I. systemic impacts (SystImp): systemic hazard (SystHaz), systems value (SystVal), en- vironmental information cycle (EIC);
II. risks and responses (RiskResp): decision-making (DecMak), societal capitals (CAPs), natural resources (NatRes);
III. structural complexity (StructComp): public governance styles (PubGovStyl), govern- ance institutions (GovInst), organisational management (OrgMgmt);
IV. contentual complexity (ContComp): knowledge domains (KnowDom), disciplinary knowledge (DiscKnow), problem-solving strategies (ProbSolvStrat).
Figure 2. ACCU, showing an aggregation of units of complex adaptive systems, including elements of structural and contentual complexity and associated concepts. The arrangement applies to envi- ronmental disturbances (see text for further explanation).
Judgement on the affinity is based on examples in literature and personal experience, also revealing that ‘second order’ units have to be taken into consideration when
Systems value [SystVal]
Systemic hazard [SystHaz]
Societal capitals [CAPs]
Natural resources [NatRes]
Decision-making [DecMak]
Disciplinary knowledge [DisKnow]
Knowledge domains [KnowDom]
Organisational management
[OrgMgmt]
Benefits/Power interactions [BenPowInta]
Adaptive Cycle [AdCycl]
Problem-solving strategies [ProbSolStrat]
Societal organisation
[SocOrg] Structural
complexity [StrucComp]
Contentual complexity [ContComp]
Risks &
Responses [RiskResp]
Systemic impacts [SystImp]
Governance institutions [GovInst]
EnvironmentaI Information Cycle
[EIC]
Public governance styles [PubGovStyl]
Aggregation of Concepts and Complex Adapted Systems Units
Figure 2.ACCU, showing an aggregation of units of complex adaptive systems, including elements of structural and contentual complexity and associated concepts. The arrangement applies to environmental disturbances (see text for further explanation).
Judgement on the affinity is based on examples in literature and personal experience, also revealing that ‘second order’ units have to be taken into consideration when analysing environmental issues: societal organisation (SocOrg), benefits/power interactions (Ben- PowInta), and the Adaptive Cycle (AdCycl). The Adaptive Cycle and benefit/power interactions are considered ‘archetypes of systems dynamics’, which is explained by Mor-
gan [31] (p. 9) as “patterns of system behaviour that can be seen in many situations”. They are basically intrinsic properties of systems functioning. On the other hand, law and politics—two out of five pillars of governance in Figure1—are not explicitly part of a single unit. The role of ‘law’ is partly included in other units (norms in [SocOrg) and instruments in [DecMak); ‘politics’ directly connects to a manifold of units and is therefore difficult to present in a flat schema. Nevertheless, depending on the topic, the building blocks can be selected and clustered in many ways according to the objective of the study, for instance, impact assessment, risk analysis, DPSIR, institutional organisation, co-operation and participation, and data and information flows. There is no single or specific entry point as it depends on the nature of the issue, the design of the research, and the background of the researcher to start with a particular unit.
ACCU presents an arrangement of units in a complex system that is at the centre of the Pentatope Model and integrated in different ways (Figure1): natural resources with ecosystems, decision-making with policy and management, societal organization with societal capitals, systemic hazard with societal capitals and ecosystems, disciplinary knowledge with science, organizational management and governance institutions with public authorities and institutional governance, structural complexity and public governance styles with institutional governance, and thematic complexity with EIC. However, as the figure reveals, systems are getting more complex, since a number of units are also of importance when dealing with systemic processes: benefits and power interactions, the Adaptive Cycle, problem-solving strategies, knowledge integration, and public governance styles.
It still remains to explain the criteria used to structure content. Since it is the intention to develop a common scheme of environmental analysis, the boundaries of the topic to be investigated are determined by the disturbance chain (DPSIR) and GASI (governance by actor-subject impact analysis) concepts. The content is focused on (water) governance challenged by contentual and structural complexity. As a result, the analytical work consists of selecting, defining, and detailing appropriate units that are arranged in the most coherent way. There is no standard of how ACCU elements should be ordered and visualised, although a number of examples exists. One of them is the Iceberg Model of Systems Thinking [29], a four-level framework based on events (“incidents and happenings that alert us to a problem”), patterns (“the history of events, or trends of data over time”), systemic structures (“the interaction amongst drivers and factors that cause the problem”), and mental models (“deeper ‘human factors’ (. . . ) that underlie and affect all human decisions and actions”).
Though conceptually sound, this kind of model lacks the dynamism to structure and the flexibility to include or exclude content, required when studying environmental issues.
Figures2and3show one visualisation of ACC-units, illustrating—according to the areas defined by Buchanan [36]—a design of ‘activities and organized services’ in which showing connections and consequences is the central theme, as well as the design of ‘complex systems or environments’ that includes systems engineering and functional analysis. As such, the ACC-units are arranged according to their mutual dependency (e.g., one unit detailing another) and coherence (e.g., grouping units with the same conceptual basis), aiming at the same time to provide a tool for dealing with systemic complexity. This can be illustrated with environmental disturbances. Unknown and unexpected disturbances, impacts, and effects are at the basis of contentual and structural complexity. The way societal issues in general and environmental issues in particular are dealt with depends on the (potential) impacts of disturbances and their (potential) risks to society. Increasing levels (both in number and intensity) of disturbances contribute to complexity in the sense of reaching limits of understanding the nature and processes of these disturbances and the way to handle them. This makes, for instance, climate change not only a matter of droughts and biodiversity loss, but also a social, economic, and governance issue. Hence, contentual and structural complexity are not restricted to separate thematic or organizational issues, since there is a broad area in which both are combined. In fact, there seems always to be an area of mutual interactions. Increasing complexity is expected to unbalance or challenge
Sustainability2021,13, 9751 9 of 46
existing pathways of knowledge and governance by questioning paradigms and structures.
This is a key driver of CAS analysis. The ACC-units are described in the next chapter.
contentual and structural complexity are not restricted to separate thematic or organiza- tional issues, since there is a broad area in which both are combined. In fact, there seems always to be an area of mutual interactions. Increasing complexity is expected to unbal- ance or challenge existing pathways of knowledge and governance by questioning para- digms and structures. This is a key driver of CAS analysis. The ACC-units are described in the next chapter.
Figure 3. ACCU presentation, detailed. Main features of units are selected and presented in such a way that they show mutual dependencies and interactions. Abbreviations: assessment (asmt); avail- ability (A); capital (CAP); business-as-usual (BAU); carrying capacity (CC); central and intermediate
Aggregationof Conceptsand Complex AdaptedSystems Units
Benefits/Power interact. Disciplinaryknowledge
Applied Sci.
Horizontal mgmt
Systemic hazard
< S pat
ial
exp osur e <
> Temporalexposure >
Cogni tiv eu nce rtai nty
Events & Trends
Leadership
Organisationalmgmt Planning
Orga nisa tion
Governanceinstitutions Power capacity Motivation
Gove rna nce
lev
el
Control Managerial- driven
Decision-making
Orga nis ati on
Issue-driven strat.
Syst em s unce rta
int
ies
Decisionstakes Problem-solving strategies>> Transdisc.
Intradisc. Interdisc.
Multidisc. Knowledge domains
Cap ita l
α Ωr
K
Adap tive Cycle
ReorganisationConservation GrowthRelease Formal Sci. Natural Sci. Social Sci.
Issu e-d riv en sci
<
Disc iplin arit leve y l >
So ciet alo rg an isat ion
Civilsociety Authorities
Par
ticipatio
n Empo wer men
t Private sector
Interests& ambitionsNormsand values Challengesof system bounds
Systems uncertainty
Citizens
Stra tegi c un cer tai nty
Institutionaluncertainty Perceptions Content- driven
(Activ e) (S
tor
ed) Issu e-dr
ive
n mgmt
Indeterminacy
Policies& instruments Unpredictability
Content
Natural resources
Connectedness (Weak)(Strong) Ve
rti cal mgmt
Emergency
Risks
> NR quantity>
> N R qu ality
>
Threats
Capacity Urgency
Uncertainty Concepts
Knowledge co-production
Instit. aggregation
Vert ic al mgmt
Societalcapitals Nat
Benefits/Power interactions Societal organisation
Sp.I.
Fs& Us Partnerships Adaptive Cycle
< Risk mgmt >
< Processmgmt>
Activities EconSoc
< Risk asmt >
< Risk comm> Monitoring
ReportingKnowledge Data mgmt EIC
<< Systemic impacts Systems value
< Societal changes >
Public govern. styles>><< Risks& Responses Structural complexity>>> Contentual complexity>>> CIM
CAP dive rsi ty/
prod uct
Sustainability limits Systems potentials
CAP conditions/resources
< ES G&Ss >
Systemiclimit
Natural equilibrium ΔEx=Δ(D,P,S)
Interaction forms LH MH HH LM MM HM LL ML HL + -0 --- + 0 0 0 -0 + + 0 + -+
Power sharing Challengesof stakeholders involvement
< P roc edur alkn ow. >
< Declarativeknow. >
ΔEy=
Δ(P, S,D )
Figure 3.ACCU presentation, detailed. Main features of units are selected and presented in such a way that they show mutual dependencies and interactions. Abbreviations: assessment (asmt);
availability (A); capital (CAP); business-as-usual (BAU); carrying capacity (CC); central and interme- diate modules (CIM); communication (comm); conceptual, human, technical skills (C, H, T skills);
disciplinarity (disc.); driving forces, drivers (D); economic, social and natural capital (Econ., Soc., Nat);
ecosystem goods and services (ES G&Ss); environmental (environm.); environmental information cycle (EIC); functions and uses (Fs&Us); governance (govern.); habitat range (HR); high-low-medium (HLM); institutional (instit.); institutional aggregation (instit. aggreg.); management (mgmt.); knowl- edge (know); natural resources (NR); professional consultation (Profess. Consult.); research and development (R&D); responses (R); status (S); science (sci.); spatial infrastructure (Sp.I.); strategies (strat.); use (U).
The ACC-units display different types of visualisations. Squares with diagonals show simple dependencies between two features, e.g., institutional organisation vs. roles and responsibilities in [GovInst). Circles within a square means that any element included can be pivoted, allowing the same kind of analysis but from the perspective of that element.
For instance, authorities (in [SocOrg) can be replaced by private sector or civil society;
[BenPowInta) in relation with [SocOrg) can be analysed with respect to empowerment, interests, and ambitions, etc. Units illustrate relationships between characteristics of the elements, although this is not intended to be a graphical data presentation. Squares with diagonals and arches show ranges of conditions along the axes, projected on mutually dependent diagonals. The bullets on the intersections of diagonals and arches indicate the critical points of the unit content, the inner area being in general the ‘known and controllable’ part, the outer area the ‘unknown and uncontrollable’ part. Colours have no particular meaning and are intended to increase visualisation by marking different areas within a unit.
5. Description of the ACC-Units
See Figures2and3for the descriptions. Acronyms between [square brackets) refer to ACC-units.
5.1. Societal Capitals (CAPs)
Concept. This ‘capitals approach’ is described by the Pentatope Model [7,18] and contains five factors: the economic, social, and natural capital, spatial infrastructure, and the process factor ‘functions and uses’. The latter meets the opinion that processes between the capitals keep interactions stable and sustainable, as long as uses by one of the capitals do not distort this societal equilibrium. Distortion occurs when exceeding the limits of ecosystem goods and services (ES G&Ss). In that case, human activities will be at the basis of events or trends significantly impacting ecosystems when crossing the limits of ecosystem resilience.
Description.Societal capital stands for the broader conception of human society, includ- ing nature as a valuable component of societal functioning. Terminology can be different (e.g., capitals, domains, or spheres) as well as the typology, showing a wide range of capital
‘types’ with similar or different meaning and/or content: social, economic, human, finan- cial, natural, environmental, manufactured, and political. The selected ‘capitals approach’
is derived from the Pentatope Model [7,18] (Figure1). The unit is part of a holistic frame- work designed for environmental analysis. It contains five factors: three main capitals (the economic, social, and natural capital), one additional capital (spatial infrastructure), and one additional process factor (functions and uses). Spatial infrastructure covers the nature/physical space and the constructed space, as indicated by Bastian et al. [37]. The basic idea is that interactions between the four capitals should maintain an equilibrium to keep a society sustainable, which means that distortion of properties and processes related to functions and uses of the capitals must be avoided. ‘Functions and Uses’ (Fs&Us) is a common denominator of the role capitals play and the benefits they gain from each other. This is what production and consumption is in a socio-economic context. The role of Fs&Us is widely applied to the discourse of sustainability and related ES G&Ss, e.g., Bastian et al. [37] (p. 4) defines ecosystem functions as “the capacity of natural processes and
components to provide goods and services which directly and/or indirectly satisfy human needs”.
Those needs seem to include also a less mechanistic, deeper functional role of society, that could be, as defended by Boik [38], the society’s intrinsic purpose to achieve and maintain vitality within itself. In the case of the natural capital, uses refer to ES G&Ss, with natural resources providing the goods and natural processes delivering the services. A societal equilibrium is not static but stands for a fluctuating status within boundaries, reflecting the dynamism of a resilient system. Interactions between capitals are mutual but not equal: the social and economic capitals largely depend on the natural capital; the spatial infrastructure is the physical exponent of any change in functions and uses, and stands at the same time for the availability and capacity of human and natural resources.
Functions and uses are at the heart of societal capitals: the social and economic capitals deploy activities, and the natural capital is a self-maintaining functional unit. The diversity, number, and intensity of activities impact CASs and may change the systems conditions and properties more or less fundamentally. Any activity or series of activities causing an effect of importance may be considered an event. If events last, they become a trend that eventually becomes widespread (global trend). When they have a significant impact on CASs in the sense that there is a cascade of events throughout the system, they could be considered societal impacts, changing the level or degree of impact, but not the relationships. Societal changes are societal impacts that fundamentally alter interactions between CAS elements. In the case of climate change, this change is a reinforcing cyclic process with global effects first (20th C.) that now tend to have large societal consequences.
Evidence and practices. Capital approaches are widely used in environmental and governance analyses, for different reasons:
i. To emphasise the integration of humans in nature: Socio-Ecological System [23,24,38], Ecosystem Approach [39], SCENE model [40], CHANS-Coupled Human and Natu- ral Systems [10];
ii. To assess the reaction of partnerships to environmental hazards [30];
iii. To address sustainable development: Four Spheres [41], Four Capitals Model [42];
iv. To address policy issues: ‘sustainomics’ [43].
5.2. Natural Resources (NatRes)
Concept.Natural resources (NatRes) represents the main aspect of natural capital. This unit can be replaced in a similar way by other human needs that are part of the societal capitals, for instance, ‘economic products’ or ‘social life’. The unit shows how the natural equilibrium will shift when the use of natural resources exceeds sustainability levels that are defined by the availability of resources. Overuse results in depletion or even loss of resources.
Description.Natural resources (NatRes) is selected as a random societal capital element, representing a single property of the natural system, or in this case ES G&Ss. Supply of ES G&Ss depends on the functioning of ecosystems, which—in turn—is driven by ecological processes operating across a range of temporal and spatial scales [37]. This ACCU unit illustrates how natural capital is part of the societal capitals functioning, and influences or is influenced by systemic impacts and risks. Sustainable use, which is the selected objective (policy principle) that is formulated by the decision-making process, is dependent on the use of resources (both in terms of quality and quantity) according to their availability. The ratio ‘availability A/use U’ equals the outcome of production versus consumption. NR use is sustainable when availability exceeds use (A > U). The critical point of sustainable use is at the cross-point of ‘significant harm to societal capitals’ (SystHaz) and the ‘significant risks’ (RiskResp). Exceeding this point means resource depletion (A≈U). In the case of ecosystems, this could be a reduced resilience or resources shortage. Use exceeding availability (A < U) means that sustainability limits are exceeded, which stands for loss of capital value (e.g., biodiversity loss) and environmental conditions that are harmful to society, indicating a state of emergency and unpredictability. Increase of loss means that the ‘sustainability limits’ point gradually shifts towards ‘natural equilibrium’.
Natural resources, balanced against the sustainability criterion, is just one of the many capital elements to be considered when dealing with societal issues. It is interchangeable by or combinable with any other impact- or risk-related issue that requires risk management and decision-making, or with societal groups involved, and of which the nature is monetary (financial crises), human (brain-drain, pandemics), social (cultural diversity, poverty), or natural (climate change, biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation). Natural resources are part of substance balances and material flows and hence relates to (SystHaz) and (SystVal). Resources are also visible as ‘capital’ in the (AdCycl); use of resources is part of (BenPowInta). Opposite to shrinking natural resources, this ACC-unit can also include a policy or management view, such as a habitatLeitbildor reference conditions (see: [44]).
Evidence and practices.(1) With respect to the connection between (NatRes) and (Syst- Haz), the case of the groundwater-energy-food nexus in Iran shows that water use for crop production greatly overshoots the renewable water supply capacity of the country, mak- ing ‘water bankruptcy’ a serious national security threat in terms of economic and social impacts, which requires agricultural modernisation and policy reform [45]. In contrast, Eriyagama et al. [46] examines acceptable limits of water storage in Sri Lanka. (2) Ecological economists have become aware of the essential role of natural capital in commodity produc- tion, the biophysical limits to economic growth, the potential shift towards a steady-state economy, and the need of economic institutions and practices to drastically reform [47].
This means, for instance, as Baron et al. [48] (p. 1248) indicate for water resources manage- ment, the development of “a coherent policy that more equitably allocates water resources between natural ecosystem function and societal needs”. In a similar way, Wuijts et al. [49] argue that assessing a river’s needs, and identifying the needs that require improvement in order to achieve a good ecological status, are necessary to identify the governance needs to improve water quality. This directly refers to maintaining a sustainable natural equilibrium. The ecosystem conditions that limit ES G&Ss are discussed by Vannevel and Goethals [20], and related time and space scales by Bastian et al. [37] and Ponnambalam and Mousavi [50]. (3) Species extinction is a real threat, and the maintenance of biodiversity is in fact part of our insurance policy [51].
5.3. Systemic Impacts (SystImp)
Concept. This unit deals with the widely applied DPSIR concept (see: [52,53]) to describe environmental disturbances and an impact scale. However, the DPSIR concept applies a slightly different meaning of the notion ‘impact’, that resulted in the ‘extended DPSIR’ [7]. An ‘impact’ stands for any actor-subject interaction (e.g., industry-river), of which the conditions of the latter may change (‘effects’). Responses apply to any of the D, P, or S factors. Significant impact means a significant effect which may be unpredictable. The impact scale is based on the Cynefin concept [54]. The area of ‘unknown impacts’ coincides with (multiple) significant impacts of which the effects are unpredictable.
Description.In this unit, ‘systemic impacts’ combines a visualisation of the disturbance chain on the one hand, and an impact scale on the other hand. Environmental disturbances are conceptually underpinned by the DPSIR approach, the impact scale is based on the Cynefin concept.
In common terms, a disturbance is a sudden and profound change of a condition, following a (series of) events. The unit is constructed according to the ‘extended DPSIR’
which illustrates that ‘an impact’ stands for any interaction between driving forces (D), pressures (P), statuses (S), or responses (R), causing a (significant) change in condition (E, effect) over a period of time (∆, which is between T0and Tx) (see: [7]). According to the D-P-S sequence, impacts between two of these factors (presented on the x-axis and y-axis) allow the following possibilities:∆Ex =∆D >∆Ey =∆P,∆Ex =∆P >∆Ey =∆S,∆Ex =∆S >
∆Ey =∆D. Combined, this is noted as∆Ex =∆(D,P,S) and∆Ey =∆(P,S,D). Responses (∆R) apply to any effect (∆D,∆P,∆S) or combination of effects. The figure shows impacts as interactions between D, P, and S, and effects as changes of the conditions∆Ex and∆Ey.
